Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

from the just-curious-which-standard-to-use dept

I'm sort of amazed at the silly and childish political games being played concerning attempts to cut funding here and there, but, seriously can anyone give me a logical explanation why the same folks who are so quick to demand that we stop funding NPR and PBS are so vehemently in favor of sponsoring NASCAR? Frankly, as a fan of both NPR and PBS, but not a fan of governments overspending, I actually think the complaints against pulling the funding from both are a bit overblown. I think there are some creative things that both NPR and PBS could do to make up the difference if they lost federal funding. However, if we are going to cut public broadcasting, then it seems only reasonable to cut sponsoring NASCAR as well, doesn't it? I'm curious how folks who claim to support smaller government are defending such sponsorship of a private, for-profit operation with taxpayer funding?

It's simple, 98% of the viewers of Sesame Street are not of voting age.
I guess its the Republicans and tea party trying its best to cut off the Democrats an liberal left before they can gain any traction before the next major election cycle.

Psh, easy.

NPR and PBS have both managed to become profit making
entities by way of selling advertisements, exactly as other radio/television corporations do. They have no need of public backing.

NASCAR, on the other hand, is a HUGE money making proposition for whomever hosts a race. I've seen towns of 50,000 people spring up in the middle of nowhere and persist for more than a week at NASCAR events. And everybody who goes there buys gas and snacks on their way to and from the event. It short, it means putting some money into NASCAR likely gets you even more money out of it.

There's nothing inconsistent about thinking the federal government's role should be national security and only national security (the NASCAR sponsorship is for military recruiting, whereas PBS and NPR are not).

It's (in my opinion) pretty dumb, and would be dumb even if the NASCAR sponsorship were more effective advertising, but it isn't inconsistent.

There's plenty of "keep the government away from my Medicare" hypocrisy out there in the Republican party these days, but this particular juxtaposition is fully consistent with the party's (dangerously short-sighted) philosophy.

I don't think it's that simple. Home Depot doesn't sponsor NASCAR just because they like NASCAR. They do it because it's good advertising. NASCAR = marketing. The armed forces spend quite a lot of money on marketing, and I imagine their NASCAR sponsorship is dwarfed by their other marketing expenses.

So, while you might argue that the armed forces have no business spending so much money on marketing, I hardly think this is about someone liking NASCAR.

Personally, I can't stand NASCAR, so I can understand why it would grate on your nerves that they budget dollars for it.

Nascar VS. PBS

The NASCAR advertising is pulled from the military recruitment budget. This is an advertising budget used to attract a specific demographic into the military. Where would you advertise ... Phish concerts?

PBS and NPR get much of their funding from the NEA. Without debating the merits of Art in our society a clear core vs. context argument can be made here.

Additionally, with the prevalence of youth cable programming and local radio stations, the historic justification for NPR and PBS are less and less compelling.

Budgets need to be cut. I would submit we need to focus on context, but not exclude core. You can argue that the military's budget needs cut, but arguing that advertising at NASCAR doesn't reach the correct audience would be a stretch at best.

Re: Psh, easy.

So, logically, you're saying that without the Army's support of one car NASCAR would stop operating? All of this added bonus would go away? Sure...

You just made the argument that both of these items are similar when it comes to the budget. Look, it's either you get rid of the funding for both of them or you get rid of the funding for neither. Getting rid of one and not the other (no matter which of the two is removed) is just politics as usual. We need better than that right now.

Saying that the DoD sponsors NASCAR is like saying it sponsors television stations every time an Army ad runs. NASCAR is pure advertising for them, nothing more. Comparing it to NPR and PBS is apples and oranges. I agree that CPB should keep its funding and the DoD should have its funding cut but this is a huge stretch of an argument to make.

Re:

It's just another chapter in the continuing saga called political hypocrisy. They go after one of their pet peeves using the budget as an excuse, but this and other petty attacks do not come close to achieving a balanced budget. They do not see or they fail to acknowledge the elephants in the room.

fta: "... eliminating funding for CPB, estimating that it would save the government $500 million in 2015"

This could cover an additional two days of our unfunded expenditures in Iraq & Afghanistan.

The answer to the title is actually quite easy:
"panem et circenses"
(Bread and Games) as the roman Poet Juvenal said.
Basically, education is not essential for any government to stay in power. A distracted public on the other hand is.

Re: Nascar VS. PBS

Stupid debate

I wish everyone in the media would get something straight. The Army does not sponsor NASCAR, nor do they fund NASCAR. They sponsor a team that races in NASCAR, and by that they bought the primary advertiser spot on that team's cars/merchandise. NASCAR itself could care less if they were there or not except for the fact that they might lose a team if they don't find a different sponsor.

The Army on the other hand does care because it is damn good advertising. NASCAR fans are very loyal to the sponsor's of their favortie drivers. According to Col. Crotts 46,000 out of the 150,000 leads Army recruiters get each year come through motorsport events (Google it). If you sponsor a good driver, for a couple million a year you can get a ton of air-time. A lot more than buying commercial slots.

The real question that should be asked is should the budget for advertising for the Army be cut, not who the Army is allowed to advertise with. If they want to cut that budget, then fine, do so and let the Army figure out where they want to spend the money they end up getting. This is one of the most asinine debates I have seen in a while.

I think it strange

I have always wondered why we dont have an accounting firm go over all the expenditures, our gov makes and Tells us in straight english Where the MONEY IS GOING.

Isnt there a Level of government that is SUPPOSED to be responsible to the tax payer(?) with this knowledge that can TELL US IN ENGLISH and simple language, where the money went?

I also find it very strange, that Many Laws/bills/.. past in congress have these ADDONS, that ask/transport/send money to OTHER SOURCES besides what the BILL IS to pay for.

Going thru all the paper work, and finally deciding WHERE the money went/is going, would be worse then the paper work for a Muti-tiered Corp and all the subsidiaries.(thats how people steal Millions and it takes years to find out)

Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.

I wondered how long it would take for recruitment to show up. IMO this is the ONLY rationalization for the Army sponsoring a NASCAR or NHRA team. I would love to see the stats on how those teams affect recruitment. Some how i doubt it would be much. I can understand the Army team(s) in college sports, but I don't get the racing teams.

The difference is in the goals. PBS wants to entertain children while teaching them values, numbers, and the alphabet. NPR aims to bring "important stories, insight and delight to audiences everywhere" (Quote from their site). While the money spent on the Army racing programs ($12m total a year between NASCAR and drag racing teams) goes to machines that eat gas, rubber, and metal to recruit 46,000 of our young adults a year to be shot or exploded in foreign countries that have no direct value to their lives.

Which is more important to our current elected officials: smart, independent, and informed citizens? or more cogs for their war machine?

Re: I think it strange

It's the only arm of the government, that I'm aware of, that actually does a damn good job. The problem is they don't have any enforcement powers. They sit on the sidelines, slam various agencies for being all screwed up, and then nothing comes of it.

The really screwed up part is if we actually gave them real power instead of them actually fixing things all the other agencies would become interested in the GAO and start gaining influence and screwing it up like everything is screwed up.

Mike, you, and a good half or so of the early commenters here, just got snookered by liberal columnist at the NYT.

There's really no comparison between the two item spends, as quite a few later commenters have pointed out.

The army "sponsoring" a team in NASCAR is really a pure advertising spend, no different than any of their other recruiting efforts. It would be just as appropriate to say the military "funds" comedy central or wherever else they advertise. It's also some low millions of dollars, perfectly in line with other media campaigns. Whether that's worthwhile or not is really a pure marketing decision, no more complicated than that.

On the other hand, the government really does "fund" and sponsor PBS in the traditional sense, and perhaps more troublingly, NPR. It's ~$450 million or so, and there's actually a lot of obfuscation on this number, it could be a good bit more in total. Now, trotting out sesame street is a little like saying "we censored for the children," isn't? We all like Kermit, and I'm a huge Nova fan besides. Problem is that a huge part of that budget goes to shows that really liberal advocacy programs, especially on NPR. How would you feel if the NYT (liberal) or Foxnews (conservative) were 20% funded by the federal government? It would be a huge problem, I'm pretty sure you would agree.

It's public funding of a company in a market that is thriving quite well without the help. If PBS can't survive on it's own merits, than it shouldn't survive.

There is no equivalency between these two programs, but Gail Collins would deeply like you to think there is, and apparently she succeeded.

Re:

OK, not that I actually wanted to argue on this level, but more cogs for the war machine, seriously. That's the prime responsibility of the federal government. The states might want to educate you, or you can pay for it on your own.

Brandon, Karr and Josh are dead-on: it's impossible to compare the funding of public broadcasting with military recruiting, and this debate is asinine for a plethora of reasons (not the least of which would be that its just another lame excuse for one party to mischaracterize the other). I'd say shame on the Times for publishing such a lame opinion, but I've come to expect that; shame on Techdirt for propagating it!

the lie big

I have to say I'm rather disappointed in both Mike and many of the commenters here on this one.

As pointed out by some, the Army/NASCAR relationship is one of advertising paid out of the Army's recruitment (marketing) budget. The relationship from the Army/NASCAR funding to the funding of both PBS and NPR is, at best, that federal government funds are used for both.

"I think there are some creative things that both NPR and PBS could do to make up the difference if they lost federal funding. However, if we are going to cut public broadcasting, then it seems only reasonable to cut sponsoring NASCAR as well, doesn't it?"

If we are going to cut funding for the arts it only seems reasonable to stop the Marines from making all those cool commercials right? It's the same comparison.

There are perfectly valid debates and points that can be brought up separately about both these spending items, but lumping them together is simply asking for repub vs dem flame wars with no real content because they can't be intelligently compared to each other. Mike, I know this is a free site, but I've come to expect better of you.

Personally I think the federal government massively overspends on just about everything and has it's hands in things it has no business in. I think we should have a much smaller federal government and the state governments should pick up the slack (which I would expect to involve higher taxes in most cases). The federal governments ability to royally screw up is directly proportional to it's size and power.

I'd also like to point out that no party has ever made the federal government actually smaller.

Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS

What people don't understanding about advertising with NASCAR is that it isn't all good advertising. NASCAR fans usually hate certain drivers. Let Newman's Army car hit Jr's and Jr's fans will hate Army. That's one reason lots of sponsors are leaving NASCAR.

Considering that NASCAR actually entered into a relationship with Harlequin Romance to produce romance novels with NASCAR theme but "Nascar has put some limits on these branded Harlequin books in order to maintain its family image: no booze, no drugs, no sex." I'm not sure who the average NASCAR fan is now.

Spokane county bought a NASCAR raceway with taxpayer money

Here in Spokane, Wa, our County Commissioners bid twice as much money as a private investor, there by overpaying, to purchase a money losing motor speedway. The contractor they hired to bring the site up to date then failed to pay subcontractors - another million $s ending up as a lien against the taxpayers. A construction worker on the site also ended up killed in accident.

This money losing County owned business was bought and paid for by taxpayers because the local county commissioners saw it as a way to buy "NASCAR votes" from this blue collar community. Sad but true.

Re:

I think this is due to the Army, Air Force and Navy target different demographics. Take a look at the advertising each branch uses: it's pretty obvious that "redneck NASCAR watcher" is not who the Air Force or Navy prefers in their ranks.

apples and oranges

I used to be totally against federal funding of public broadcasting and believed that the vast variety of cable TV programming made such funding superfluous. Having seen what passes for "history"and "science" on so much cable TV, though, I think it's good that such quality programming as produced by public broadcasting should be encouraged, not discouraged. As a society we should encourage quality, not dumb things down, which happens on many cable TV documentaries.

As far as NASCAR is concerned, I question the wisdom of spending tax dollars to recruit there; you're talking to a convinced audience. Scarce marketing dollars should instead be channeled into markets that need more convincing.

Plus, I think anybody who believes that public broadcasting isn't being targeted for political reasons is completely out of touch; "liberal" public broadcasting has been the target of the right for years and this current political climate is an opportunity to get even, even if it means contributing to the dumbing down of the population. Public broadcasting is about as conservative as any mainstram programming source; in recent years they've bent over backwards to give all sides a voice and have really pulled punches on outing the liars for fear of being accused of taking sides. Perceptions of "liberalism," I fear, are a holdover from the 80's, like calling the Washington Post "liberal."

Re: Matt Bennett

I think Matt is the first to really hit this on the head: it is not hypocrisy or even confusing at all. Conservatives/Republicans dislike NPR because of a perceived liberal bias and don't want tax dollars going to fund it. NASCAR is not a political organization and does not make political comments through its official capacity – unless patriotism and the like is considered political.

Furthermore, as is mentioned above, DoD is not "funding" NASCAR anymore than Pepsi is funding NBC. I must echo the disappointment in Mike that others have said; how frequently do we discuss on this site the difference between posters and site owners? DoD is using the forum of a NASCAR car sponsorship to reach potential recruits (and very effectively as has been shown above). CPB, PBS, NPR on the other hand are analogous to the forum itself, which is funded directly by tax payer dollars.

If Mike has a problem with encouraging military recruiting, he can feel free to espouse that, but it is not hypocritical for critics of NPR to stand behind funding of (successful) military recruitment advertising, while concurrently seeking to remove funding for political rhetoric.

Re: Re: Re:

Techdirt is being hypocritical

One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with. MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be brought into the future, instead of using laws to maintain their obsolete business models. The market has spoken and the old ways of doing business are no more.

Public broadcasting has more in common with the legacy media groups than is being highlighted here. The successful enterprises, like Sesame Street, will have no trouble surviving any government cuts. While those properties that fail in the marketplace will no longer be produced. This may be disheartening to those who think America is being "dumbed down," but it is entirely consistent with the Techdirtian view of economics.

It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets. Techdirt is constantly talking about alternative business/funding models for content creation - surely these highly prized Public Broadcasting properties can find sponsorship through one of these models. If not, I don't think they will be missed, since no one will be engaging with them anyway.

Re:

I don't think it's particularly important to this discussion whether sponsoring a NASCAR team is the best use of the army's advertising dollar, or not. I'm not a marketer, but I suspect they know their business and it is at least comparable to other options. Point is, is that it is merely a marketing strategy and that's the only level it need be evaluated on.

Re: apples and oranges

UH.....who said it wasn't being targeted for political reasons? It has a liberal agenda (or many programs do) and it's getting federal dollars. So, republicans want to defund it, and democrats want to pretend it's an outrage. That's a political basis. I don't think anyone's said otherwise.

But riddle me this, if they were really "as conservative as any mainstream programming source" (let's not get into what a laugh that is) then why, oh why, would republicans be so enraged by their being funded by the federal government?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: apples and oranges

"It has a liberal agenda"

That's right. Why just the other day I saw on Nova a discussion of evolution as if it were something that could really happen. I was outraged! And then they had the nerve to broadcast both sides of the global climate change thingie. Who do they think they are anyways. They even try to convince you that the earth goes around the sun - egads, that's enough to make yer head explode.

Re: Re: apples and oranges

Yes it's those liberal facts...you realize that the same people who call PBS and NPR "liberal" are the same people who believe Fox "News" Channel is actually without bias. I have a 1 year old daughter so I spend A LOT of time watching PBS and sprout and I hardly think that learning languages, numbers and promoting healthy lifestyles, all of which provide long term benefits has a liberal agenda. There's no politics involved...you probably would love to do away with those liberal public schools too and those public roads...just admit you're a conservative, libertarian or tea party activist and get off your high horse. The arts and education doesn't have liberal agenda. They are underfunded because long term results don't play well with voters, plain and simple.

I mean seriously, you gloss over the huge impact that these programs can have over an entire lifetime and push kids to die in foreign wars that cost more in one day than one year of programming. What kind of monster are you?

Re:

speaking of the military ad fund wouldnt that be a good place to cut?
as someone who has no intension to ever join(wouldn't go unless this government starts doing better, no amount of money or legal treats could make me risk my life), and in the age group that they target to brain wash(late middle school to a few months till out of highschool) I CAN SAY THEY SPEND TO MUCH AND IT DOESNT WORK

Re:

It's simple, democrats want to indoctrinate children at a young age. Plus, dems have no issue claiming they care about the saftey of this great country, but really only want to see low income and under educated serve in the military.
Add to this the holier than thou attidtude of the left and this type of rhetoric is what is spewed.
No group is greater at taking money for political favors then the left. NO GROUP. The left has one agenda....take from the working class and 'rich' (as though they are evil), keep most for themselves, give a bit to the needy and keep the needy wanting more. This is the leftist way and has been for centuries. Perhaps we should take from the rcih...like the hollywood elite...a nice fat tax on their net worth...say 80%...what do they really 'need it for'? Bet that would not fly with you leftist as you buy your politicians off. Prhaps instead of asking for money to feed the poor, you could give up 80% of your money to feed the poor. Really, $1M from a hollywood liberal who has $500M and we are supposed to think they are generous.

Perhaps it is these folks who should fund the public(social) airwaves???

You left who think freedom is free sicken the rest of us.
I thought hope and change was supposed to close Gitmo, get us out of all foriegn lands and get the rest of the world to love us because we 'understood' and blah blah. Well, news flash, the rest of the world is laughing at us (again - thanks Carter), and think our leaders are weak, immature and naive. Read the news (not just listen to CNN and MSNBC) and you'll get the truth.

Re: Why does Nascar want money from our armed forces?

NASCAR is not the recipient for the sponsorship, a car team is. They are an independent company that races at NASCAR races and that sponsorship is their primary source of funds, so no they cannot just sponsor them for free.

Re: Re: apples and oranges

You mean like Planned Parenthood has a 'liberal' bias? Here's a hint - it doesn't. The Republicans are vastly overplaying their hand.

PBS is a public service, and you should be grateful that it even exists in the climate of Faux news and MSNo News Here. Yet it's being defunded to help run a 'war' that the US is losing, because it doesn't know how to cellularise the military.

Re:

Easy

This is an easy explanation: The Army is sponsoring a NASCAR car for the same reason that any other organization does it, advertisement. The car will reach the Army's core audience of potential military men and women.

On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!

Easy

This is an easy explanation: The Army is sponsoring a NASCAR car for the same reason that any other organization does it, advertisement. The car will reach the Army's core audience of potential military men and women.

On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!

Easy

This is an easy explanation: The Army is sponsoring a NASCAR car for the same reason that any other organization does it, advertisement. The car will reach the Army's core audience of potential military men and women.

On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!

Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

It would be easy for you if everyone that disagreed with you were a religious anachronism, wouldn't it?

Regardless, you failed to contest the point. If they weren't promoting a liberal agenda (a real one, not this "evolution" voodoo you're going on about) then why would conservatives care one way or the other?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oohh, I love Pinky and the Brain! Narf!

Regadless, dude, yes, I rate convincing young men to give 4 years of their life fighting abroad (which is much, much better than them fighting here) as much more important than funding entertainment and biased journalism that there's already a market for.

Re: Re:

Seriously? Centuries?

Most of your statements are not 'the leftist way' but just what most of the right want people to think of the left. i'm not saying the left doesn't have its fair share of corruption, but its by and large not as bad as you make it out to be. if you truly believe that, you're no longer thinking for yourself. the left and the right are both corrupt.

Also, you need to work on your writing skills. To be honest, I can barely follow your thoughts. They're all over the place. The punctuation is really confusing too. I don't think you know how to use an ellipsis. Also, i don't know where you're getting this 80% number either.

then your last paragraph is just a mess as well. you must believe you're preaching to the choir because you don't bother explaining *any* point you're making. we don't necessarily believe what you're saying, so you can't just say something is true and expect to persuade or even have a decent debate with anybody.

you come across as someone who thinks that they are absolutely right. i have news for you, you're not. that's a fact. i don't know if you just want to try to insult individuals or what, but your purpose for commenting is largely lost on me. if you're not trying to persuade somebody to your point of view, then you're only doing this to convey some sense of 'holier than thou' attitude that you're right, everybody else is wrong. its completely hypocritical and in the end, devoid of any real meaning.

i could throw in a jab and say this is typical of the right... but i feel the joke would be lost.

Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

Look, man, I'm pro-choice, myself, but PP mostly is involved in abortions. It advocates on behalf of a pro-choice agenda, for obvious reasons. I don't have a problem with any of that, but how is that not liberal? I DO have problem with them getting gov funding.

Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.

"NPR and PBS have both managed to become profit making
entities by way of selling advertisements, exactly as other radio/television corporations do. They have no need of public backing."

NASCAR managed to become profit making entities by way of selling advertisements (and tickets, and merchandise, ad deals, selling ads, and many more) just like every other sporting league does. they have no need of public backing.

it's really funny how ridiculously blind you are to the double standard you're making.

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

If you want government funding you cater to the politicians not what is best for the people

NASCAR most likely lobbies and when the politicians come to an event they get special treatment.

Sesame Street is often to confusing to most politicians, the words are big and the concepts are difficult to understand - Especially that silly sharing concept. The Math makes no sense at all as all politicians know that 1 + 1 = 3 for sufficiently large values of 1.

It is obvious if you want government funding you cater to the politicians not what is best for the people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

Almost everything on NPR has liberal spin to it, with the possible exception of Planet Money (which I'm a huge fan of, and I almost feel tries to be liberal, but logic wins through).
Do you remember the Juan Williams controversy? Were you awake that month? That's really what started this thing, btw.
Tell you what, let's give Fox News $450 million in federal funds. Then we can both be equally unhappy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

Almost everything on NPR has liberal spin to it, with the possible exception of Planet Money (which I'm a huge fan of, and I almost feel tries to be liberal, but logic wins through).
Do you remember the Juan Williams controversy? Were you awake that month? That's really what started this thing, btw. Tell you what, let's give Fox News $450 million in federal funds. Then we can both be equally unhappy

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

It's not that simple

A lot of comments about how the Army sponsorship is advertising while PBS and NPR are "funded", without any mention of the difference in costs, or the alternative means for either. If the Army stopped sponsoring a NASCAR car, they still have MANY avenues for advertising and recruitment. If NPR and PBS go un-funded, they have ONE WAY to raise capital, fund raising. So while they aren't really in the same realm of expense category from the governments perspective, they are comparable under the umbrella of "what should we be spending money on". Personally, I think the armed forces commercials are pretty darn cool (and can't be cheap to produce), and are VERY effective at raising the interest of the young people they're targeting. The NASCAR only hits NASCAR fans, not a wider audience, so from a cost-benefit perspective, it's not the most cost effective, and isn't that what we're after?

NASCAR does raise a lot of interest and money, but it has it's downside too. Gateway Speedway in St. Louis has closed recently, completely.. why? Because after 5+ years of being promised a cup-series race by NASCAR, they took the race to Arkansas (or Oklohoma, don't remember which).. The track here couldn't cover expenses after that and closed. So everyone in the area loses NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA and club racing. Yep, they sure deserve my tax dollars...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

Are you incapable of having perspective on this? I actually think both PBS and the NYT are more biased, at least in their basic reporting, than FOX. FOX, on the other hand, has a host of conservative commenters and then straight reporting whihc is relatively fair. I suspect you have a different opinion, that's fine, but if you refuse to admit the analogy, you're basically giving up any pretense of reasonable conversation.

Re: Re: The answer is amazingly simple...

I have the answer. Sesame Street needs to provide in product placement of the Army, then Sesame street could go after these add dollars. One episode could be the sesame street animals enlist. Another could be them fighting in a war in such a way that people watching want to join the army. That way PBS is funded and the army gets advertising. Everyone will be happy.

Re: Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical

I believe the point that many, many people are making is that PBS should be a for profit business, that has to survive on it's own. Or hell, it can be a non-profit that survives on viewer contributions, that's generous I think, but fine. They're fond of saying that's where most of their funding comes from.
Point it, they should stand on their own merits.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I disagree with having my taxpayer money go to NPR. I'd rather hurt myself with a penny than giving it to NPR. They are liberal biased as all hell, even if they were conservative i would disagree with giving money. They need to be neutral and do what they are supposed to: be a public radio not a propaganda machine. Same goes to NASCAR, no money for them either.

Re: Re:

I really have to agree. Even the visible DoD budget appears bloated and corrupt and wasteful. That doesn't include the estimate 30 to 50 Billion dollars of "black budget", which is apparently a complete and utter waste of time and money.

Seriously. Black budget should not exist. Statistically speaking there's only a very few secrets of national importance. There's huge numbers of career-ending blunders and opportunities for graft, kickbacks & etc.

Statistically speaking, the black budget is guaranteed to be all waste. That's right, all fat, and no meat. Ditch it.

If we are so in debt as a nation that we have to cut health programs and veteran's benefits, why can't we cut out the $12 million+ spent on car sponsorships? Does that money really gain any recruitment over tradional methods? How many people join just because Ryan Newman, someone who ranked 15th last year, drove the Army car?

Maybe we ought to take care of the veterans this country currently has instead of trying to get new recruits.

Re:

That kinda misses the point. Military budget is going to $X, and thus the recruitment budget will be $Y. Is it really for us to micro-manage how that budget is spent? I assume they have competent marketers, and they probably know better than us what is or is not effective. Is NASCAR inherently offensive? Why do you want to dictate where that is spent? Do you care, particularly, how Coco-Cola spends it's ad dollars? I don't.

Re: It's not that simple

It's advertising money fot the military. If Congress where to ban them from sponsoring NASCAR due to this rhetoric, it would still be spent elsewhere. This entire discussion is rhetoric trying to get people to buy the idea that the GOP are a bunch of NASCAR-loving idiots who hate education, the arts, and women. I call BS.

In all reality, what's the overall percentage for NPR/PBS versus the INCREDIBLE waste going on in our government? .001%? .00001%? Seriously, THIS is the most CUTTING you could do?!?!?!?

It's just sad. They aren't elected reps, they aren't even politicians, they're individuals who have figured out how to make money of the "people" they claim to represent. Do you think ANYONE of them, their families, or their friends are affected by ANY of the cuts they're making? Hell no, their families/friends are doing just fine, making millions, it's off the backs of the "everyman" they make their money, and will continue to do so as long as the "everyman" screams "dirt liberals!" whenever we try to make them see the truth.

At this point I'm seriously considering going Tyler Durden on the whole bunch. Who's with me?

NASCAR

Think about it folks. Driving 500 miles in a circle at 200 miles an hour. Where you can see 2-20 vehicle car crashes and not not be involved in it, while you swill beer and throw chicken bones at the track and/or tv. Now look at what Sesame Street promotes. Big yellow bird and some muppets that don't swear, fight, and are fiends on grammar and pronunciation. Which one would you fund for the sheeple to be mesmerized with?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS

It's really not like the majority of PBS is kids programming.

Yes, actually, it is like that. Because not only is the majority of their programming for kids, but the programming with the highest viewership is for kids. No matter how you slice it, PBS is primarily a kid's channel.

If we were talking about kids programming (we were not)...

Actually, some of us were. Specifically, the justification for PBS.

...I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.

We weren't discussing parental limits, we were discussing economic limits. Children without cable generally don't have other choices. It's PBS or nothing.

Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical

One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with.

I disagree. Techdirt has a problem with government-backed monopolies for legacy business models that are interfering with innovation and/or competition. PBS and NPR (and libraries, which they've previously defended) aren't interfering with innovation or blocking competition.

In fact, you can't even call public broadcasting a monopoly, since the market has provided so much quality competition that some people believe that PBS and NPR are no longer needed. That certainly doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets.

So you think Techdirt should also support defunding prenatal care, public schools, public roads, and libraries because they can't survive the free market? That's certainly interesting.

I think you're confusing Mike Masnick's belief in what the market can do with his belief in what people should do. There is a difference, you know.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS

I'm sorry, it's just almost none of the things you say are true.

No, PBS is not majority kids content. (might I point out that we were really talking about funding for public broacasting company, which includes both NPR and PBS, and NPR is where most of the problem is, but hell, PBS has it's problem too.)

I think it's just silly that you think the majority of poor families give up cable TV. It would be nice if they did, that certainly should be the first thing they cut, but it isn't. And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable. Many of them, btw, I have noticed have strangely nice cars. If you fit in these categories, and this doesn't apply to you, great, very good for you, but it just isn't the norm.

ANd lastly, I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS. I would think that it would be great if they did, I'm actually very supportive of PBS as an educational tool, I certainly love NOVA, and I think it could help break the cycle of poor=uneducated. But it's just not the way of it. If you are the exception, again, hats of to you, but it's just not the norm.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

Again, ma'am there is simply no way that is in any way true, either by hours spent (not the procedure itself, you have to count the exams and consultations leading up to an abortion in the cases which do so) nor in revenue.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS

That's rich coming from a guy that has asserted that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion service and that PBS has a liberal* slant.

*I'm non-partisan.

No, PBS is not majority kids content.

Source?

And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable.

Source?

I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS.

I never stated that families without cable mostly watch PBS. I stated that children without cable are more likely to watch PBS than children with cable. I stand by this postulate, but freely admit that this opinion is anecdotal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges

Look, man, I'm pro-choice, myself, but... I DO have problem with them getting gov funding.

If you're a liberal, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because forcing women to bear children is flat-out wrong.

If you're a conservative, then you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because they're a fraction of the cost of prenatal care, welfare, or any number of programs that we offer for poor children.

If you're non-partisan, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because a lack of legal, affordable abortion services leads to the Kermit Gosnell's of the world popping up all over America.

Marketing Budget? Its still my tax dollars

I keep hearing the defense that the monies going to NASCAR teams is part of the Pentagons marketing budget...as if that changes anything or makes it right. It is still MY taxpayer dollars being spent on SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT at a time when our society is crumbling under economic strain.
The GOP is slashing funding for The National Weather Service and NOAA, Planned Parenthood, National Education Association, healthcare for women, etc. etc., all valuable needed services, yet think it logical to continue giving our tax dollars to NASCAR racing teams (I don't give a flip if its marketing or not).....its still my money!!! Come on people. Lets please get our priorities straight!!

Advertisement

Your not jumping all over the army for the millions they spend annually on TV ads, that is what nascar sponsorship is a targeted ad at a specific group. 7 million annually for the amount of advertisement that comes with the sponsorship is not that bad of a deal, and nascar fans then by merchandise and wear army gear which provides more ads. You can argue that the army doesn't need to advertise but it chooses to and nascar is just one of those many forms

I am a diehard Nascar fan and a moderate republican. I find federal funding for nascar raceteacks offensive and unamerican. Rep and Dems should be ashamed for allowing this type of funding to be added to the tax bill. This is how our country got into the fiscal mess. We must address the debt.

Nascar - PBS

The writer of this article criticizes people who want the gov to sponsor NASCAR but not PBS.
I have known PBS gets money from the gov for a long time. I did not know NASCAR was also getting gov. freebies.
I believe the majority of Americans have no idea where the Gov. is spreading it's largess. Do you know that the Queen of England has farmland holdings in the United States and receives a US Government Farm Subsidy check each year.? The politicians of both parties are guilty of these outrageous subsidies to special interests. Fire the bastards and bring in some "NEW' bastards.!!!!!